Queen Location and Nest Site Preference Influence Colony Reunification by the Ant Temnothorax Rugatulus
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Insect. Soc. DOI 10.1007/s00040-016-0503-1 Insectes Sociaux RESEARCH ARTICLE Queen location and nest site preference influence colony reunification by the ant Temnothorax rugatulus 1 2 G. N. Doering • S. C. Pratt Received: 10 May 2016 / Revised: 2 August 2016 / Accepted: 3 August 2016 Ó International Union for the Study of Social Insects (IUSSI) 2016 Abstract Social insect colonies adeptly make consensus Introduction decisions that emerge from distributed interactions among colony members. How consensus is accomplished when a Group-living animals frequently confront decisions that split decision requires resolution is poorly understood. We require consensus on a single option (Camazine et al. 2001; studied colony reunification during emigrations of the cre- Conradt and Roper 2005; Dyer et al. 2008; Kameda et al. vice-dwelling ant Temnothorax rugatulus. Colonies can 2012). This need is particularly clear for movement deci- choose the most preferred of several alternative nest cavi- sions, such as the choice of a new nest site by an emigrating ties, but the colony sometimes initially splits between sites ant or bee colony (Visscher 2007; Seeley 2010; Pratt 2010). and achieves consensus later via secondary emigrations. We While a colony may benefit from dividing among sites explored the decision rules that govern reunification using (Debout et al. 2007; Robinson 2014), the costs of separating artificially split colonies. When monogynous colonies were the queen from part of her workforce include depriving her evenly divided between identical sites, the location of the of their labor and might lower both queen and worker queen played a decisive role, with 14 of the 16 colonies inclusive fitness. reuniting at the site that held the queen. This suggests a Emigrating colonies possess effective means of achiev- group-level strategy for minimizing risk to the queen by ing consensus, despite lacking well-informed leaders that avoiding unnecessary moves. When the queen was placed in can impose a single best choice on the entire group (Seeley the less preferred of two sites, all 14 colonies that reunited 2010; Pratt 2010; Kaur et al. 2012; Cronin 2012). A decision did so at the preferred nest, despite having to move the instead emerges from competition among locally informed queen. These results show that colonies balance multiple individuals, each of which promotes one option. The factors when reaching consensus, and that preferences for effectiveness of this promotion correlates with that option’s physical features of the environment can outweigh the quality (Seeley and Buhrman 2001; Mallon et al. 2001; queen’s influence. Robinson et al. 2011). Quality-dependence does not by itself lead to consensus, but social insects have evolved additional Keywords Consensus decision making Á mechanisms that do so, including quorum rules and highly Nest site selection Á Emigration Á Queen Á Temnothorax nonlinear responses to recruitment signals (Pratt et al. 2002; Seeley and Visscher 2003; Pratt 2005; Sumpter and Pratt 2009; Cronin 2012). These tactics amplify differences in the popularity of competing options, so that recruitment to one site eventually dominates the others. Leaderless colonies & G. N. Doering can thereby cohesively move to a single site and also reach [email protected] consensus in other contexts, such as foraging, escape from 1 School for Engineering of Matter, Transport and Energy, danger, and nest building by self-assembly (Nicolis and Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, USA Deneubourg 1999; Camazine et al. 2001; Lioni and 2 School of Life Sciences, Arizona State University, Tempe, Deneubourg 2004; Altshuler et al. 2005; Pratt et al. 2005; AZ, USA Detrain and Deneubourg 2008; Seeley 2010; Cronin 2013). 123 G. N. Doering, S. C. Pratt Consensus-building mechanisms are well illustrated by albipennis take special precautions to protect the queen; in the emigration behavior of Temnothorax ants. These insects migrations she is moved toward the middle of the emigra- typically live in preformed cavities such as hollow nuts or tion. This ensures that she always has the protection of rock crevices, and colonies are adept at emigrating to the roughly half of the colony’s workers (Franks and Sendova- best of several alternatives when their old nest is damaged Franks 2000). It is, therefore, reasonable to expect that or when a better site becomes available (Franks et al. 2002; colonies might act similarly to minimize danger to the Dornhaus et al. 2004; Pratt 2010). Decision-making relies queen during reunification. on quality-dependent initiation of tandem run recruitment, To investigate reunification, we split colonies of T. in which a scout leads a single nestmate to a promising rugatulus between two sites and allowed them to reunite, candidate home (Mallon et al. 2001; Robinson et al. 2011). noting which site they chose. To test for an effect of queen Recruitment generates positive feedback through site pop- location we divided monogynous colonies between two ulation, and does so more effectively for better sites. The identical nests and randomly assigned the queen to one of quality effect is amplified by a quorum rule under which them. We then compared the relative influence of queen slow tandem recruitment is succeeded by speedier social location and site design by placing these criteria in conflict; transport when a site population exceeds a threshold (Pratt we divided colonies between two nests that differed in et al. 2002). The winning site is likely to be the best one, cavity brightness and placed the queen in the brighter, less because quality-dependent recruitment means that better preferred site. We subsequently observed the ants’ choices sites attain a quorum earlier (Pratt et al. 2005; Pratt and to determine whether they weighed one criterion over the Sumpter 2006; Sumpter and Pratt 2009). Once the ants other. Queen number varies widely in T. rugatulus (Ru¨ppell accelerate migration by switching to transport, they are et al. 2001; Heinze and Ru¨ppell 2014), but we focused on likely to complete the move before any competing sites monogynous colonies, because we expected that protection reach a quorum. of their only queen might be especially important. While the ants’ decision algorithm minimizes split decisions, it does not completely avoid them. Emigrating colonies sometimes transiently occupy multiple sites before Methods reuniting at a single home (Franks et al. 2003a; Pratt and Sumpter 2006; Franks et al. 2008). These splits reflect a Nest designs tension between colony cohesion and rapid movement, and they become more likely when dangerous conditions require Nests consisted of a 2.4 mm thick balsa wood slat placed a colony to move quickly (Pratt and Sumpter 2006; Franks between two glass microscope slides (50 9 75 mm). A et al. 2013). At a mechanistic level, splits occur when more circular hole drilled through the center of the slat created a than one site simultaneously attains a quorum, triggering 38 mm diameter nest cavity, accessible to the ants by a social transport to multiple sites. Reunification requires a 2 mm wide slit through one side of the slat. To dim the second stage of emigration in which all but one of the cavity interior and make the nests more attractive to the occupied sites are abandoned in favor of a single winner. ants, neutral density filters (Rosco Cinegel) were sand- The criteria that govern which site wins and the behavior wiched between two microscope slides and placed on top of that allows reunification of the colony remain poorly the nest. We used a single 1-stop filter in all nests except for understood. the dimmer nests in the second experiment, which were In this study we investigated the influence of two fitted with three 3-stop filters. Balsa slats were discarded potential reunification criteria: The physical features of the after each experiment, but slides were re-used after cleaning occupied sites and the location of the queen. We expected in a commercial dishwasher. See Sasaki et al. (2015) for that colonies should attend to site features, just as they do in further details on nest construction. the initial phase of emigration. Preference tests have shown that Temnothorax base their decisions on several factors, Subjects including entrance size, interior light level, and the height and area of the nest cavity (Pratt and Pierce 2001; Mallon The same 18 colonies were used in both the first and second et al. 2001; Franks et al. 2003b; Visscher 2007; Mitrus experiments; an additional two colonies were used only in 2014). We further hypothesized that colonies prefer the site the second experiment. All colonies had a single queen, that holds the queen, to avoid moving her from one site to 50–150 workers, and 0–50 brood items. This size range is the other. Exposure during emigration is dangerous (Ret- similar to that seen in other studies of nest-site selection by tenmeyer et al. 1978; Franks and Sendova-Franks 2000; Temnothorax (e.g. Dornhaus et al. 2004; Robinson et al. Dornhaus et al. 2004; Bouchet et al. 2013) and the queen’s 2009; Sasaki et al. 2015). Colonies were collected in the survival is vital to the colony’s future fitness. Temnothorax Pinal Mountains of Arizona (33.317N 110.876W) in May 123 Queen location and nest site preference influence colony reunification by the ant… and September of 2013 and 2014. Before the start of the experiments, colonies lived in nests like those described Arena above but without the neutral density filters. Each nest was housed in its own 11 9 11 cm plastic box. Colonies were fed weekly with an agar-based diet (Bhatkar and Whitcomb 1970), and nest boxes were also provided with water tubes that were refilled weekly. Voucher specimens from each colony were deposited at the Arizona State University Natural History Collections in Tempe, Arizona.